That onside kick is still bothering me.

[Elmgrovegnome]

By rule they should have called the Seahawks for tackling Marquez. However that penalty would have helped the Rams at a critical time in the game and it goes against Triplette's under the table agreement to try to help the Seahawks win every game.

 

[shaunpinney]

By rule they should have called the Seahawks for tackling Marquez. However that penalty would have helped the Rams at a critical time in the game and it goes against Triplette's under the table agreement to try to help the Seahawks win every game.

Are we talking deflated balls being played with again?

 

[Ram_Rally]

Fisher discussed this on the Rich Eisen show. the officials freaked up..again. they flagged Marquez for calling fair catch on a ball they claimed had hit the ground on the kick and was a free ball. so Fisher told them that and they knew they freaked up so instead of correcting it and giving the penalty against Seattle they just told Fisher he could have it at the spot.

This pisses me off. Why does it seem like we're always on the wrong side of these calls? Oh and by the way, the Seahawks weren't supposed to get the back back at all in overtime after onside kicking. I bet if we had done it, the rule would've kicked in.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Are we talking deflated balls being played with again?

By the looks of him I am sure Triplette's balls are deflated.

 

[brokeu91]

This pisses me off. Why does it seem like we're always on the wrong side of these calls? Oh and by the way, the Seahawks weren't supposed to get the back back at all in overtime after onside kicking. I bet if we had done it, the rule would've kicked in.

Is that true? I didn't know that about the rule

 

[-X-]

Oh and by the way, the Seahawks weren't supposed to get the back back at all in overtime after onside kicking.

I don't think that's right. That rule's in effect if the kicking team recovers.

A.R. 16.2 ONSIDE KICK
On the opening kickoff of overtime, Team A (Seahawks) legally recovers the ball at the 41.
Ruling: A's (Seahawks) ball, first-and-10 on the 41. A kickoff is considered an opportunity to possess for the receiving team. Team B (Rams) is considered to have had an opportunity to possess the ball.

And the other onsides rule:

A.R. 16.3 ONSIDE KICK
On the opening kickoff of overtime, Team A (Seahawks) attempts an onside kick. A2 legally touches the ball at the 42 but muffs it and it is recovered by B1 (Rams) at the A43.
Ruling: B's (Rams) ball, first-and-10 on the 43. Team A (Seahawks) is not considered to have had an opportunity to possess the ball.

 

[Ram_Rally]

I don't think that's right. That rule's in effect if the kicking team recovers.

A.R. 16.2 ONSIDE KICK
On the opening kickoff of overtime, Team A (Seahawks) legally recovers the ball at the 41.
Ruling: A's (Seahawks) ball, first-and-10 on the 41. A kickoff is considered an opportunity to possess for the receiving team. Team B (Rams) is considered to have had an opportunity to possess the ball.

And the other onsides rule:

A.R. 16.3 ONSIDE KICK
On the opening kickoff of overtime, Team A (Seahawks) attempts an onside kick. A2 legally touches the ball at the 42 but muffs it and it is recovered by B1 (Rams) at the A43.
Ruling: B's (Rams) ball, first-and-10 on the 43. Team A (Seahawks) is not considered to have had an opportunity to possess the ball.

I've read elsewhere that once a team attempts an onside kick that they've gambled their opportunity to a rebuttal. I'll try to find it.

 

[kurtfaulk]

I don't think that's right. That rule's in effect if the kicking team recovers.

A.R. 16.2 ONSIDE KICK
On the opening kickoff of overtime, Team A (Seahawks) legally recovers the ball at the 41.
Ruling: A's (Seahawks) ball, first-and-10 on the 41. A kickoff is considered an opportunity to possess for the receiving team. Team B (Rams) is considered to have had an opportunity to possess the ball.

And the other onsides rule:

A.R. 16.3 ONSIDE KICK
On the opening kickoff of overtime, Team A (Seahawks) attempts an onside kick. A2 legally touches the ball at the 42 but muffs it and it is recovered by B1 (Rams) at the A43.
Ruling: B's (Rams) ball, first-and-10 on the 43. Team A (Seahawks) is not considered to have had an opportunity to possess the ball.

That can't be right. If a team loses the chance of possession because of an onside kick then the team attempting it should also lose it if it fails.

.

 

[Ram_Rally]

Is that true? I didn't know that about the rule

I've been corrected above but I read on another forum that it was the case

 

[Ram_Rally]

I don't think that's right. That rule's in effect if the kicking team recovers.

A.R. 16.2 ONSIDE KICK
On the opening kickoff of overtime, Team A (Seahawks) legally recovers the ball at the 41.
Ruling: A's (Seahawks) ball, first-and-10 on the 41. A kickoff is considered an opportunity to possess for the receiving team. Team B (Rams) is considered to have had an opportunity to possess the ball.

And the other onsides rule:

A.R. 16.3 ONSIDE KICK
On the opening kickoff of overtime, Team A (Seahawks) attempts an onside kick. A2 legally touches the ball at the 42 but muffs it and it is recovered by B1 (Rams) at the A43.
Ruling: B's (Rams) ball, first-and-10 on the 43. Team A (Seahawks) is not considered to have had an opportunity to possess the ball.

I did my research again X. Turns out my info was incorrect. Guess I can't believe everything i believe on forums (besides this one lol). That's a stupid rule IMO

 

[Ram_Rally]

That can't be right. If a team losses the chance of possession because of an onside kick then the team attempting it should also lose it if it fails.

.

I just read the rule. Turns out that's exactly right

 

[-X-]

That can't be right. If a team loses the chance of possession because of an onside kick then the team attempting it should also lose it if it fails.

.

Dunno. That's just what I took from the rulebook. Fisher would have said something by now if Seattle wasn't supposed to get another possession.

 

[RAGRam]

NFL OT rules are stupid anyway, just use the college rules and be done with it.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Dunno. That's just what I took from the rulebook. Fisher would have said something by now if Seattle wasn't supposed to get another possession.

I'm not doubting it. I was just saying from a point of view of fairness for both teams. There should be some recourse for taking such a risk if the receiving team loses the chance of possession.

.

 

[Fatbot]

I was just saying from a point of view of fairness for both teams. There should be some recourse for taking such a risk if the receiving team loses the chance of possession.

Well the team attempting the onsides kick is "punished" by the short field they just gave the opponent. But I think you have a good point about the fairness. The rule seems to screw over the team on the receiving end of the onside kick with not only not losing possession but losing their "opportunity to possess", too, a pretty severe result of a random luck play.

But the reason for that rule is if it didn't exist OT could go on forever. Example Team A kicks a field goal, then onsides kick and recovers. The game would not be over if it wasn't declared Team B had the opportunity to possess. So Team A -- already up 3 pts in OT -- could kick another field goal -- now up by 6 -- onsides kick & recover again and kick another field goal -- now up by 9 -- over and over, until time ran out when Team B still never had its "opportunity to possess" they are entitled to under rule!

Rules have to be made to kill every ridiculous possibility, however unlikely, so it makes sense it's in there, but they should just add a quick sentence to the rule that "on the opening kickoff of overtime an onside kick attempt does not count as the opportunity to possess" or something. Otherwise, the opening onsides kick strategy isn't as awful as I thought when I was calling Pete Carroll a moron as usual. (But of course he didn't try to onsides, it was just a mis-hit pooch kick, right? Mm-hm...)

Mike Perrera - I think that's his name - basically said they should have called it

Why does it seem like we're always on the wrong side of these calls?

The answer to these two comments is linked: http://kron4.com/2014/01/20/former-nfl-top-ref-grew-up-a-niners-fan-video/

 

[12intheBox]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...hawks-got-away-with-a-penalty-on-onside-kick/

AP
The officials corrected one mistake on the Seahawks’ onside kick at the start of overtime against the Rams on Sunday, giving the Rams the ball after first wrongly ruling that the Rams had committed an invalid fair catch signal. But the officials made another mistake that they failed to correct.

Rams coach Jeff Fisher says the NFL has admitted that the Seahawks should have been flagged for hitting Rams receiver Bradley Marquez after he signaled for a fair catch on the onside kick. In the confusion that began with the officials wrongly flagging Marquez for an invalid fair catch signal, they failed to realize that the Seahawks had committed the penalty.

Fisher says he told the officials after they corrected their first mistake that they also needed to enforce the penalty on the Seahawks, which would have moved the ball from the 50-yard line to the 35. But the officials didn’t listen to Fisher, a longtime member of the Competition Committee who’s well-versed in the rulebook.

“They just said, ‘We’re going to give you the ball right here. We’re not going to re-kick, so let’s go,’’’ Fisher said, via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “I just couldn’t convince them to enforce the penalty because they just wouldn’t put the ball on the 35-yard-line.’’

Fisher said that it was such an unusual play that he’s not surprised it wasn’t officiated perfectly, and he appreciates the league acknowledging the error.

“The thing is, when have we seen that before? It just doesn’t come up,’’ Fisher said. “I talked to [NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino] last night and he explained it and we were right. He said, ‘No, they made a mistake.’”

The Rams ended up kicking a field goal on the first possession of overtime and winning the game by stopping the Seahawks’ subsequent possession, so things ended well for St. Louis. But referee Jeff Triplette and his crew were far from perfect.

 

[dieterbrock]

So you are allowed to call fair catch on kickoffs? If so, then I think that rule should be changed since you are allowed to recover, unlike punts.

Let's say there's a high pooch and the kickoff team gets there in time to catch or tip it. If the guy waives his hand, the kickoff team has to crowd around and hope he drops it? IMO, that's bullcrap - it should be any man's ball.

You can fair catch a kick off just like a punt. But once the ball touches the ground (during a kick off) it's a live ball.
Actually, when you fair catch a kickoff you are entitled to a free kick and can kick a field goal with no defense of the play. Had the refs given the ball at the 35 the Rams could have just had Z line up for a warm up like fg.

 

[12intheBox]

At some point, we should take notice of what a heads up play it was by Marquez to call for the fair catch.

This is a rookie in his first NFL game at the start of overtime against the Seahawks - and he has the presence of mind to get to the spot, throw up the fair catch signal, and come down with the ball.

I don't know if that was just football instincts kicking in or his football processor is already ticking that fast - but either way - you gotta love having a guy like that out there.

 

[Ken]

At some point, we should take notice of what a heads up play it was by Marquez to call for the fair catch.

This is a rookie in his first NFL game at the start of overtime against the Seahawks - and he has the presence of mind to get to the spot, throw up the fair catch signal, and come down with the ball.

I don't know if that was just football instincts kicking in or his football processor is already ticking that fast - but either way - you gotta love having a guy like that out there.

He was very impressive in his 1st game. Usually that's an omen of a great player with a long career.

 

[12intheBox]

He was very impressive in his 1st game. Usually that's an omen of a great player with a long career.

He had a huge - body sacrificing - block on TA's punt return as well.

I didn't see him making the roster - but its not taking me long to understand why he did.